The dangerous folly of the Carrying Capacity Doctrine

Is humanity a danger to itself by its over-use of the environment?


The dangerous folly of the Carrying Capacity Doctrine

Does my statement that the very existence of humanity is built on created resources that don't exist naturally, reflect a gross misunderstanding of the principle of the carrying capacity of the earth, in general, and specifically as it applies to human culture? Do the Lotka-Volterra equations that reflect the interdependent relationship of predator and prey populations also apply to human culture, because, as it has been said, biodiversity can be consumed? 

But is it really true that biodiversity is inherently being consumed by the Earth's human population, which thereby limits human population-growth in a predator and prey interrelationship? This would be true if the human being was an animal of the type of a wild herd of cattle that expands its size till the grazing lands it feeds on are being depleted faster than the natural system can recover itself, whereby both the herd and the ecology collapse at a point when the carrying capacity is exceeded. However, does this apply to humanity? The answer is, no!

The Carrying Capacity Doctrine is built entirely on the platform of the animalistic self-limiting model. But does this model really apply to human culture?

We, humanity, are our own proof that the Carrying Capacity model does not apply. 

We came out of the last Ice Age glaciation cycle, after a two million years of development, with a world population of one to ten million. The natural system evidently didn't support greater numbers during the harsh environment of the glaciation cycle. The result seems to prove the Carrying Capacity Doctrine. In reality it doesn't. While scientific and technological development had been fairly low until quite late in the current interglacial period, it was evidently a significant factor even during the last Ice Age glaciation for determining the human population size. It is known that the late Ice Age cultures were primarily seafaring cultures, since the fisheries provided most of the food supplies in an glaciation environment. In order to operate fisheries, however, humanity required technologies for boat building and scientific skills for navigation. Evidence exists that these had been developed. The existence of such technologies and scientific knowledge obviously increased the size of the population that was able to support itself on our planet at the time. It is also fairly obvious that without these developments, which are totally unique to the culture of humanity and are not found in any other living species, the size of the human population coming out of the last ice age would have been far less. This difference alone disproves the Carrying Capacity Doctrine.

The capacity of the Earth to carry a human population is, because of the uniqueness of the human being, not a reflection of the natural capacity of the Earth, but reflects humanity's potential for scientific and technological development. It does not reflect absolute limits. Without the factor of human development being reflected in scientific and technological development, the Earth would have been too small for humanity millennia ago. The size of the population that the development of agriculture had enabled after the Ice Age climate had ended, would have been unsustainable without this human development. While the interglacial warm climate was a major factor in the revolution for food production that agriculture became, the technology for agriculture was specifically a human development component that became expressed as a food-resource revolution. No other species, with rare exceptions, has developed the capacity to create its own food resource.

Human culture is inherently a culture of development, a culture of breaking the boundaries of supposed limits. On this score, it appears, we have barely begun to unfold our capacity. We are presently still limited by the limits we place on ourselves as we intentionally throttle back our self-development. For this sad and silly reason we find us relying even now on rather primitive forms of energy resources, such as wood, coal, oil, windmills, solar heat, hydro electricity, and some nuclear power. The same folly in limiting our development is also evident in agriculture. We still live by primitive agriculture to a large extent. And in the economic arena too, we operate our economy with primitive mineral resources. Yes, we have ample proof on our account that when the human culture stops its development as is presently imposed on it, the Earth quickly becomes overpopulated. The point is that the size of the human population that can support itself on the Earth, is for all these reasons not a factor of the natural capacity of the Earth to supply the human need, but is a factor of the development of the human scientific and technological potential that presently supplies the human need almost entirely.

You can prove for yourself that this is so. Just 'free' yourself of all the material implements that human culture has created to meet the human need. Shed your clothes, take off your shoes, leave your home, and go out into the wilderness and try to survive. You won't live very long. Even in the most ideal places on the planet you would find it hard to survive. You would likely die rather quickly according to the Carrying Capacity Doctrine.

However, does human development have a limit? Are we running out of resources for our materialistic culture that richly meets the human needs? Are we running out of energy, out of land for agriculture, water for irrigation, minerals and materials for our industries? We are told that the answer is yes on all counts, that we are consuming everything in sight. In reality the answer is no! 

While it is likely that oil is a limited resource, the fact is that we should have stopped long ago to use oil, gas, and coal, as an energy resource, because they are inherently a primitive resource for energy production with a low energy density that is not exceedingly useful. Nevertheless we still rely on these primitive resources, because scientific and technological development has been politically stopped. Nuclear power development was stopped in the late 1950s and early 60s, before it even got off the ground. It was stopped to prevent the development of a rich human culture in which the system of empire and its looting practice would have been so far out of place that they would cease to be. Human development has been stopped for this reason. For this reason too, the development of space-based energy has been prevented, which we actually have at hand in the form of the electric energy in space that surrounds our planet and powers our sun, which promises the near endless potential to supply our needs for all times to come.

Nor are we running out of building materials. We don't even need the primitive materials that we presently use to build our houses and industries, which we are running short of, such as wood, steel, and concrete. We have a higher-grade building material sitting on the ground unused in vast quantities, called basalt, a material that is ten times stronger than steel, is a three times better insulator than asbestos, does not rot and corrode, is nearly as hard as diamonds, and is 100% recyclable, of which we have as much on the planet to cover the entire surface of the Earth thirty feet deep. Only its development is presently prevented, by preventing the needed development in high-temperature energy production that is required for the use of this material.

We face no limits either in the availability of mineral resources. We are only running short on some of the easy to get resources, like iron that we simply pick out of the earth, ready-made in high-concentration ores. We had no need so far to go further. We haven't even begun the development of the technology for the decomposition of molecular structures that are presently locked up in the rocks of the earth. The process of molecular decomposition is widely used in nature by the chlorophyll molecule that is the active element in all the green plants that decompose CO2 into oxygen and carbon. We have a principle illustrated here in nature that we haven't even bothered to utilize for meeting our needs. This is the result of keeping ourselves locked into the primitive processes of digging the materials we need, readymade out of the ground, instead of making them ourselves.

Agriculture too, has no inherent limits on this planet. It only seems limited as we have locked ourselves into the primitive domain of simply tilling the ground wherever it offers itself for easy use in outdoor agriculture. We haven't even begun to develop the near infinite potential of multi-story indoor agriculture, that would be operating with optimized environments, including optimized artificial sunlight. Nor have we begun in a big way to develop the deserts for agriculture, which we will need to have operational when the coming Ice Age transition takes us back to our normal Ice Age climate that disables agriculture as far south as the 40th degree latitude. The 40 degree line was roughly the permafrost line during the last Ice Age.

 Neither have we begun yet to develop floating agriculture placed onto the oceans as an interim buffer during the Ice Age transition period that may not be far off on the horizon, certainly closer than the time we have left to develop indoor agriculture on the needed scale. While the exact day for the start of the transition cannot be determined, it has been noted in scientific circles that this transition is already five centuries overdue, which puts it quite ' near.' Some people suggest that ' near' means 50 to 150 years from now, while a number of indicators suggest that the transition might have already begun.

Of course, if we can't be bothered to pursue the potential we do have to create new agricultural resources with advanced scientific and cultural developments, that is, if we keep our development potential artificially throttled back to zero, then we do commit ourselves to be living like animals that don't have this potential at all. In this case, the Carrying Capacity Doctrine will apply. It applies from the point on when we stop our development. This is what the real significance of the Carrying Capacity Doctrine is. It is antihuman in nature. It is presently deployed as a factor for preventing the advance of human development. In this respect it is totally fascist by intention, as the termination of human development with the return of the Ice Age on the near horizon, will most likely cause the extermination of 90% of humanity when the loss of the warm climate eliminates much of our food resource that is presently totally dependent on primitive agriculture.

It is a sad fact of modern times, under the yoke of modern imperial politics, that the extermination of 90% of humanity has become a policy intention. The entire Global Warming Doctrine has evidently been intentionally invented to prevent the human development that is essential for humanity to meet the Ice Age Challenge. The Carrying Capacity Doctrine is being applied as a policy element to advance the intentionally genocidal front.

As a natural law, the Carrying Capacity Doctrine does not apply to humanity, unless humanity subjects itself to oligarchic predation that destroys its development potential. It applies in no other case. Any other application to humanity is inherently genocidal by intention, the very intention for which it was created in the 1790s as a policy for the masters of empire. It applies of course, as a natural law, to all other species.

In the course of humanity's normal dynamics, expressed in scientific and cultural development, the biological diversity of our planet is not reduced or consumed. Such tragedies typically result in primitive cultures where development is prohibited. In such cases ever great stress is placed on the environment in an effort by the inhibited cultures to survive. In the developed regions, the biodiversity has been increased by human interaction. Unproductive regions have become biologically productive. Flood control measures, fire control, and large scale water management have added to the process.

The most destructive element in nature has always been nature itself. The Ice Age glaciation cycle is typically a cycle of massive extinction of the biodiversity on our planet. Humanity may well be able to minimize these extinctions with scientifically focused preservation measures, and the very technological platforms on which we prevent our own mass-extinction, which otherwise cannot be avoided. After all, we are inherently close to the natural system and are its most able stewards, rather than being destroyers of it. We plant trees in our cities, bring plants into our homes, and surround our homes with gardens.

This does not mean that we don't hesitate to allow oligarchic forces to destroy the environment in which we live with vaporized radioactive uranium dust from the use of depleted uranium weapons. The damage that we have already caused by this political madness is truly incalculable, with a hundred times more of it now being prepared. But this is a different story, though it will have an impact on the size of the population that is able to survive in a world that has on this path been made largely uninhabitable.


Home page

Rolf Witzsche
researcher, author, producer, and publisher

My published books, research, novels, science, free online,

Please consider a donation - Thank You

Published by Cygni Communications Ltd. North Vancouver, BC, Canada - (C) in public domain - producer Rolf A. F. Witzsche

Agape Research

About Cygni

Webmaster Resources